Okay, this is a somewhat political post, albeit art-related post for this collage blog. The New York Times today reported that a new record has been set for the price paid for a single piece of art at auction -- Giacometti's "Walking Man" (1961). The price..... $104 MILLION dollars!!! Hey, I want artists to be paid for their work as much as anyone. And I don't want to dictate how people spend their money. But just like I believe that there is NO athlete worth a $100 million/10-year contract, I don't believe anyone should pay this much for a piece of artwork... BECAUSE I personally believe that $100 MILLION dollars could be better spent on medical help for the poor or to help 250 college students pay for tuition or to build 5 libraries for inner-city schools! Sorry for the politico... but the rich keep getting richer and the rest of us sit by and read stories like this about the arts. ARGH!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And of course long-dead Giacometti doesn't see a dime!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Collagist: Another perspective could be art is valued. It seems dollars more than correlate with our emotions: what's wrong with using an abstract (the monetary system) to give a gradated praise to another abstaction, so to speak?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it possible someone reaches the judgment that a particular piece is not worth $104.00, let alone $104,000,000? Would your hierarchy of "best spent" still apply?
I suppose I see it as relative to the income of the "average Joe" or "available" to the "average Joe" in terms of "disposable income". When someone has THAT much disposable income that could potentially help others in actual need (rather than having simple aesthetic "wants"), there's a line that is crossed in my mind.
ReplyDelete